Appeals Court Rules U.S. Government Must Reconsider Asylum Requests Of Women Who Underwent Genital Cutting

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Sexual Health / STDs;  Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Article Date: 16 Jun 2008 - 6:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in New York City on Wednesday unanimously ruled that the U.S. government must reconsider the asylum requests of three women who underwent female genital cutting, also referred to as female genital mutilation and female circumcision, in Guinea, the AP/Google.com reports. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said it was "deeply disturbed" that the women's claims were not taken more seriously (Neumeister, AP/Google.com, 6/11).

Last year, Salimatou Bah, Mariama Diallo and Haby Diallo told the Board of Immigration Appeals that they feared for their own safety if made to return to Guinea, and two of the women said they feared for their daughters' safety. BIA decided that because the women had already undergone the practice, they would not face persecution upon returning to the country. The 2nd Circuit Court panel overturned BIA's ruling and ordered the board to rehear the cases (Feuer, New York Times, 6/12).

The panel said BIA should have presumed that the women would continue to experience persecution in their homeland rather than considering genital cutting a one-time act. The panel also said the U.S. government should be required to prove that the women would be safe from further persecution upon return and noted instances of women who were repeatedly subjected to genital cutting and other forms of persecution (AP/Google.com, 6/12).

Judge Rosemary Pooler cited a State Department report that said women in Guinea also often experienced domestic violence and rape, the Times reports. In a concurring opinion, Judge Chester Straub said that genital cutting is a "horrendous act of persecution" that has "serious life consequences," adding that BIA had "simply failed" (New York Times, 6/12). Straub said BIA's "entirely dismissive treatment" of the women's claims "belies any sentiment" to the board's notation that genital cutting is "reprehensible" (AP/Google.com, 6/12).

According to the Times, lawyers for the women did not return calls seeking comment. Ana Reyes -- an attorney for the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, who filed a supporting brief on behalf of the women -- in a statement said, "Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for women who seek our nation's protection to escape the brutal practice of female genital mutilation and the other forms of gender persecution that are associated with it" (New York Times, 6/12).

Charles Miller, a Department of Justice spokesperson, said the government was reviewing the court's decision and has not yet decided what the government's next step will be (AP/Google.com, 6/12). Two of the women have been in the U.S. since 2003 and the other since 1992 (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 5/1). All three will remain in the U.S. while the case is pending (New York Times, 6/12).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.